Re: [Cbor] Starting WGLC on draft-iet-cbor-sequence

Jim Schaad <> Mon, 19 August 2019 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34C71208F2; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kRMWJyHBE4Xg; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C7F51208E0; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:59:20 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <>
To: <>
CC: <>
References: <030e01d552b8$c7c9d110$575d7330$>
In-Reply-To: <030e01d552b8$c7c9d110$575d7330$>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:59:19 -0700
Message-ID: <01f501d556c8$97d452a0$c77cf7e0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGWLfiTnFim1QpWkbA0RZBLNAKVHKeBLa8w
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: []
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Starting WGLC on draft-iet-cbor-sequence
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:59:51 -0000

Here is my WGLC review - and also a reminder that people need to, at a
minimum, say that they have no problems with the document.  The hope is to
close the WGLC before the next CBOR interim.


1.  Section 1: Should the introduction note the registration in the CBOR
content format registry as well?  I have no personal opinion on this.

2.  Section 2: I find the paragraph about delimiters slightly difficult to
read.  Something that might be better is:

CBOR Sequences, unlike JSON Text Sequences [], do not use a marker between
items.   This is because CBOR data items are self-delimiting and the end can
always be calculated.  This is no longer true for JSON as a simple value
such as an number is now a JSON document.

This reads slightly better in my opinion and also highlights why JSON is no
longer self-delimiting.

3.  Section2: In the second bullet under decode - would "deliver a sequence
of CBOR data model values" be better as "deliver one or more CBOR data model
values" ?  I don't have a personal opinion, I just wonder if avoiding
sequence is better in this context.